Open Source Realtime Strategy Game Engine
https://springrts.com/phpbb/
Yes. It is a torus with view distortedAnarchid wrote:Didn't populous also have a cylinder map, warped to look like a sphere, while not being one?
They are games that rely on terrain deforming mechanics (most noticeably zero-k for example). I suggest that for backwards compatibility sake.gajop wrote:I assume he meant voxel, and also that you realized that yourself :p (Ah silentwings beat me to it)
Implementing a true voxel map - one that allows for bridges/caves - would present the same difficulties as making a fully 3D one would (rewriting the pathfinder, movement and physics).
A simplified version where you just had discreet (step-wise) terrain height is already mostly doable if you ignore the texture rendering issues at such angles. Consequently that's the only thing that would need to be written.
Oh, but maybe those maps make sense in some other cases. It works well in Civ5 and EU4, although in both cases maps are just wrapped around (not actually 3D). It would certainly be useful for any attempt at making planet simulators.PicassoCT wrote:and as we saw in planetary annhilation.. it doesent really add to the gameplay..
I just don't think that games have to make use of all features of the engine.
Who says anything about me implementing it? Do you really want ME to implement it?hokomoko wrote:That's not nice, let's make a civil discussion of voxel (yes?) based maps.
Super_Mario, how are you planning to implement it in the engine.
In particular how are you planning to solve all dependencies on the GetGroundHeight calls?
Equally, the problem with using a bounty for this is that it would be a huge amount of work and is not a self contained project that can be easily branched & merged back in. But the first question to solve there; is anyone actually interested in implementing it for given bounty.I suggest using the bounty feature so we can stop relaying on half ass solutions merely because they are "easy" to implement.
No question about the difficulty part, but what other options do you have in mind if you think using a bounty isn't the way of doing this?Silentwings wrote:Equally, the problem with using a bounty for this is that it would be a huge amount of work and is not a self contained project that can be easily branched & merged back in. But the first question to solve there; is anyone actually interested in implementing it for given bounty.I suggest using the bounty feature so we can stop relaying on half ass solutions merely because they are "easy" to implement.
I assumed that's why you posted.Super Mario wrote:Who says anything about me implementing it? Do you really want ME to implement it?hokomoko wrote:That's not nice, let's make a civil discussion of voxel (yes?) based maps.
Super_Mario, how are you planning to implement it in the engine.
In particular how are you planning to solve all dependencies on the GetGroundHeight calls?
I post so we could start talking about it. (it's in the title.)hokomoko wrote:I assumed that's why you posted.Super Mario wrote:Who says anything about me implementing it? Do you really want ME to implement it?hokomoko wrote:That's not nice, let's make a civil discussion of voxel (yes?) based maps.
Super_Mario, how are you planning to implement it in the engine.
In particular how are you planning to solve all dependencies on the GetGroundHeight calls?
How much did you plan to contribute then?
None, I don't think there is a good option here.what other options do you have in mind
Anything related to your intial post.Contribute to what?
TBH I don't know the answer to the questions that I have ask.Silentwings wrote:None, I don't think there is a good option here.what other options do you have in mindAnything related to your intial post.Contribute to what?
because he is an "idea guy," generally I think I had him on my ignore list for a year because he used to make WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY dumber suggestions. Generally he comes in with somewhat random ideas posts them to see if anyone is interested. At least he isn't as pretentious about it as some of our past idea guys but generally, this is his *thing*hokomoko wrote:So if you didn't plan to put funding/code/time towards this, why do you think anyone else would?
I didn't say that, stop putting words in my mouth please.hokomoko wrote:So if you didn't plan to put funding/code/time towards this, why do you think anyone else would?